FACTS which contradict what is taught in the universities and which even run counter to the assumptions made by critics of misandry.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

“Woman, and Her Right to Kill” - 1922

FULL
TEXT: Whether it is not wasting the money of the taxpayers trying women for
murder in cases where the so-called unwritten law can be evoked is the subject
of comment throughout the country. The discussion centers upon the recent
acquittal of Miss Olivia Stone, the Cincinnati nurse, who shot a former
corporation counsel of that city because she alleged he had failed to keep his
promise to marry her.

“If
women who commit crimes of passion are always to go free,” suggests the NEW
YORK WORLD, “why bother to try them? Why not provide an immunity procedure,
based on the unwritten law and including recognition of the tender
susceptibilities of sympathetic jurors, whereby the process of exculpation may
be shortened and cheapened? The plan would do away with considerable hypocrisy
and humbug in the name of justice,” which leads the Syracuse, N. Y. HERALD, to
remark:—”Why not? Why should the money of taxpayers be wasted in the
prosecution of women who kill their comrades in illicit relationship?

If
the law making deliberate murder a capital offense is to be suspended in the
discretion of juries, when the assassin is a woman, it would be better for
the cause of justice, and it would make law more respectable, specifically to
exempt from any punishment women who murder their paramours. Such travesties of
justice as this help to give fresh impetus to the crime wave.”

It is
pointed out by the BROOKLYN EAGLE that “we no longer stage a purely judicial
proceeding for the trial of a woman accused of murdering a man from whom she
has suffered real or fancied wrong. Instead we stage a melodrama, with the
defendant as the persecuted heroine and the dead men as the villain.” The EAGLE
points out that while the judge may try to hold the scales of justice even,
acquittal is certain, and adds:—”Perhaps one of the earmarks of our
civilization is our frank recognition of the fact that law can be made to mean
one thing for a man and an entirely different thing for a woman,” Which brings
from the Worcester TELEGRAM the suggestion that “juries of normally hardboiled
males continue to view crimes through a glamor of romance, chivalry and
sympathy, set the seal of their approval upon homicidal endeavor and bid the
law, instead of the defendant, go hang,” while the Columbus, Ohio, STATE JOURNAL,
sarcastically remarks that “the acquittal is in strict accordance with the
exact terms of the unwritten law and we trust will give added impetus to the
movement among our girls in their pursuit of happiness to arrange to be
deceived and then shoot.”

The
fact that the verdict, like all of its kind was, after all, “against society,”
is pointed out by the Pittsburgh, Pa., GAZETTE TIMES, which feels convinced
that “Americans do
not believe in the unwritten law, as commonly defined; they do not believe in
private vengeance, the forgiveness of which by a jury amounts to usurpation of
authority by twelve men whose sole duty is to determine the facts of a case.
Justice for society demands that the criminal courts function legitimately.”
And in this specific case, the Danville, Va., REGISTER, points nut. there was
no evidence only by Miss Stone herself that she had been wronged by Kinkead and
adds: “even if he had deceived the woman as she claims, does that justify her
in shooting him down?” And acquittals of this character naturally will have the
effect of encouraging women to slay the Lafayette, Ind., JOURNAL-COURIER
believes, and “thus is murder in a “love nest” given a place among the favorite
indoor “ports of the day.”

The
jurors may have had some justification for their verdict in the opinion of the
Richmond, Va., TIMES DISPATCH, which points out that “the evidence in this case
had revealed to them a defenseless young woman, her betrayal and subsequent
relentless hounding by a man who led a Jekyll-Hyde existence, her humiliation
and desperation—then the fatal meeting.

That
was the picture impressed upon the minds of the jurors, and, right or wrong,
the verdict they gave is the verdict we may expect to continue hearing in eases
of this sort.”

Which
prompts the Savannah, Ga., NEWS to suggest that in view of the imposition of a
seven and a half years imprisonment on Gussia Human in a New York court for
perjury at her lover’s trial for murder and the acquittal of Miss Stone “the
truth may be that the greater the crime the less likelihood of punishing, the
woman in the case.” And the Richmond, Ind., ITEM, feels convinced that “it has
got to a point where almost any woman can be sure of acquittal for killing a
man. All she has to do is to throw hysterics and shed tears in court and her
conviction is seemingly impossible.”

The
Port Huron, Mich., TIMES HERALD, feel that “one may have unlimited sympathy for
the wife who kills the woman who steals) her husband, and may find plenty of
excuses for the man who shoots his friend for violating the honor of his wife,
but (here is considerable question whether it is a wise method of administering
justice, although too often the punishment may be well deserved.”

The
economic phase of the situation furnishes a strong appeal to the editor of the
Worcester, Mass., GAZETTE, who sarcastically declares that “taxes are high;
government is expensive, let’s save hundreds of dollars and much nerve force.
When a lady pulls her trusty gat and perforates her sweetheart don’t arrest
her. Save time and money and wear and tear. Besides, this plan would enable the
killer to get on the stage or in the movies within a day or two after the
killing.” The very fact that there are so few, by comparison, killings by women
leads the Cleveland NEWS to call attention to the fact that “it may be said the
nature of American women is demonstrated as being generally and notably kind,
patient and peaceable by the fact that murderesses are not more numerous in a
country where it always is an open season for man hunting by women.”

1 comment:

That is some biting commentary... news articles nowadays don't seem to measure up in their... I think this is sarcasm right? Well done, though.

I've always wondered if there was a way through hiding appearance, voice tone and name, anything else in a case that indicates gender, if we could prosecute crimes without revealing biasing information like the sex, age or ace of alleged victims and the accused.

I am reminded of when feminists make the argument that since men and women are equal, there MUST be a problem with the SYSTEM if they are earning less money than us. To suggest that the system is fair implies that men work harder or are more effective workers.

Looking at this in another issue: if men and women are equal, then if more men are dying from violence... and more men are being convicted of crimes... what does that mean?

Surely it can't mean that more men are criminals... perhaps men are just more often prosecuted?